Upon further review.........Sanders' "fumble"

I know this topic has been covered a lot on this MB but yesterday on the NFL Channel they had a segment (weekly feature) with the Head of NFL Referees reviewing crucial plays and replays from this past week and this guy said that the Sanders' fumble should have been called an incomplete pass because the catch, switching of hands with the ball and the subsequent fumble were all related consecutive actions of a single untouched player, regardless of the number of steps he took, and should have been ruled merely an incomplete pass, just as many on this MB have adamantly stated. So to those who expressed that opinion, you are hereby officially vindicated by order of the NFL Head Official. I think our D shut them down after that turnover so it's difficult to say what impact this would have had on the final score. Obviously, at this time it is a moot (or as my ex would say, mute) point. <<<<<<Game Officials

 

It was a fumble

 

All logic and sensical football dictates it was a fumble. Santonio Holmes had a touchdown in the '08 AFCCG, Calvin Johnson had a touchdown week 1 against the Bears a few years ago, and this was a fumble. By today's new "rules" perhaps it "should" have been ruled incomplete, and don't think that didn't cross my mind, but I wouldn't want to benefit from a crappy rule like that anyway.

 

You don't have to buy it, it's just there. The rules don't make sense. Steps used to count, but we've seen guys take 3, 4, 5 steps before dropping the ball and ultimately getting that called an incompletion. We've seen guys take a couple steps, fall down, roll around, start to get up and lose the ball, and get that called an incompletion. According to the tuck rule, you could technically do back to back pump fakes the entire time you're in the pocket and then guarantee you don't fumble, because if you lost the ball it would be during a throw, even if your arm was going backwards (because you didn't re-set or make a football move or whatever), and even if the ball went backwards (which really makes no sense, considering if you do an intentional throw backwards it's a live ball). See: Patriots/Raiders 2001.

I don't know why they're so determined to make easy, obvious rules backwards and terrible and complicated, but they are.

 

Yes I can see your point and I'm not agreeing with the incomplete pass after the fact ruling - the steps comment was only in the context of this play which occurred over - what - 5 to 8 yards and not 20-30 - where he saw (apparently) closely related hand movements that led to the alleged "fumble" and he didn't in this case count the steps, which we, the viewers have always been led to believe is crucial to the determination of a completed pass as well as that infamous yet nebulous term, "football move". I still vividly remember the call against Troy's interception of Manning in the 2005 playoffs where he rolled on the ground and then when rising to run dropped the ball and it was called a dead ball/incomplete interception and we all howled at that on field ruling.

 

The Ravens did score a TD on the on the drive following that turnover. Rice's long TD run was just a few plays later.

 

It's a classic case of attempting to make rules explicit by introducing so many caveats just about any interpretation is possible. Maybe the tuck rule was the start of it. The "footballing move" with Troy in 2005 certainly didn't help.

The thing is - and while I would never admit this on gameday - refereeing decisions are a part of the game. Bad calls and missed calls are always part of the end result, and the general idea is that the errors eventually balance out. That, I'm fine with. BUT there is a big difference between a ref missing a call in the heat of the moment (e.g. holding on Harrison), and taking time to interpret the game to one end of the other. What I'm not fine with is introducing calls so inexplicably complex that the refs have to basically reconstruct the play after the event and make a judgement on that.

 

Fumble

 

If he had fallen down would it have been an incomplete pass because he didnt complete the catch through going down to the ground?

 

Still a loose ball he HAD possession

 

I don't know any GOOD argument against that being a fumble.

 

If that play would have happened in the endzone, they would have ruled it incomplete on the field for sure. They would have said he never completed the catch.

While I do not agree with the stupid new convoluted definition of a catch, it currently is what it is. A catch should simply pass the eye test.

 

This. No way anyone could convince me that it wasn't.

 

he should have held on and scored. focus people, focus. that's your job. catch the damn ball.

 

Woulda - coulda - shoulda - sorry can't change the actual play after the fact. The only relevant point at this time is that the NFL Head of Officials now says it should have been ruled an incomplete pass based on rather nebulous criteria that has sparked a fair amount of commentary.

And yes the subsequent Raven series did lead to Rice's 34 yd TD run. Had the play been ruled an incomplete pass - we were on our own 28 and would have punted since the fumble occurred on 3rd down. Good chance Balt would have had the ball around their 37 anyways the same spot they recovered the fumble. So - either way - fate would probably have spun events the same way.

Oh yeah, and if Neil O hadn't thrown those two lame interceptions..............................

 

You had to go there, didn't you...

 

I still wake up in cold sweats. I am also still haunted by Sid Bream rounding 3rd. Thank God for Franco, Santonio and Maz to offset those horrid nightmares.

 

LOL love the sid bream part. how true.

 

I think the real issue is the NFL has clouded common sense with lawyer mumbo jumbo. Nobody knows what a complete pass is. In the past, the 2 step rule may not have been perfect, but at least we knew what was a catch. Take the Calvin Johnson pass, supposedly it was incomplete because he went to the ground. What if a receiver catches the ball, runs 50 yards across the field, then without being touched, falls to the ground and loses control? At some point you would say it was a complete catch then a fumble. Which is what the Sanders ruling was. Yet in the same amount of steps had Sanders gone to the ground and lost the ball, it would have been incomplete. The rule needs to be changed, but I fear that that isn't the direction the league is going in.

 

Yes indeed - they certainly opened a Pandora's Box with instant replay and it doesn't appear as though the rules have been changed to reflect the nuances that can now be detected in the super-slo-mo-hi-def-3D-Dolby 5.2-4G-virtual realty-latex free-zero trans fat- cannabis legal world in which we now reside.

Remember the glorious dark days when the only two rules were: (1) The ground can't cause a fumble; and, (2) You can't advance a "muff" (although I have to admit I've made many brave attempts over the years).

 

This is just a test. If this were a real post, you would have been notified what to do and directions to the closest Civil Defense Shelter. Repeat - this is just a test.

(Sorry - just trying to get my Senior Member Designation and Discount with 100 posts.)

 

A test? What test? I didn't study. I demand a recount!

 

Not even remotely close. IT WAS A CLEAR-CUT FUMBLE.

 

It was, according to all logic. But the point is that we've all seen plays just like that (and some where it's even more clearly a catch/fumble or a catch/touchdown or catch/down by contact or whatever) that were ruled incomplete, even after a replay review. The rules are so (bad word)ed up that technically, that play possibly "should" have been ruled incomplete, according to the rules. That's not how I want the rules to be, but that's what we've seen time after time in other games.

But perhaps according to the BS rules, the reason it is still a fumble is that he wasn't going to the ground. I know that makes a difference (for some BS reason).